A "fire triangle" is at work here.

1) Hot air
2) Angry, screwed over populace
3) A nutcase to spark things

Air, fuel, spark/temp.

Until we run out of one of these, expect the fire to get worse. Can you say "Franz Ferdinand"?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

In any case, Limbaugh is absolutely right in what he said. I'm not his biggest fan, but when he's right, he's right. His "rah rah America" thing is typical of the shallow mindset of the Boomer right, but what he said about the left is entirely true.

Yep. I remember Obama saying that if you're black you have no chance. Absolutely true.

At least it is true if you have a really bad case of values lock, up is down, north is east, and the right is right.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Because she wasn't liberal enough? I seem to recall that the Daily Kos had some pretty nasty things to say about her before this incident.

In any case, Limbaugh is absolutely right in what he said. I'm not his biggest fan, but when he's right, he's right. His "rah rah America" thing is typical of the shallow mindset of the Boomer right, but what he said about the left is entirely true.

In particular:

[/I]

That's only true about the far-left, though...not Democrats in general. Meanwhile, substitute Corporatism for socialism, and you have a statement equally applicable to the Boomer far-right. The real problem in America is that the hate cuts myriad ways, while the Corporates are laughing all the way to the bank. The left-wing utopiates would also, if they were winning...but they aren't.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Sure thing!

Here's a pretty good overview that appeared in the New York Times. Mother Jones broke the story of Loughner's visit to one of Congresswoman Giffords' campaign events, while the Wall Street Journal covered his postings on an online video game forum.

That should cover just about everything that I said in my earlier post.

Thank you, Semo. You didn't type the link in for the New York Times story, so I couldn't read that--don't know I missed it in my own copy--but the Mother Jones piece was interesting. But it linked to something equally interesting. Tierney, Loughner's friend who was the source for Mother Jones, reported that Loughner's mother was Jewish. But this been well researched and she isn't--she came from a long line of Catholics. She might have had a Jewish grandfather, but that is speculative, based on his name, and his kids were raised Catholic.

The question I think we must face is whether the general, pervasive ideological climate of a particular time is in fact likely to turn a nutcase in particular direction. Loughner was already hostile to government, clearly, when he showed up at the first Gifford event. I am sure we are going to get more data about him--his friend said he kept a dream journal and I am sure investigators are pouring over his computer. Interestingly enough, Tierney also commented that he thought Loughner's motive was to create chaos and that he must be delighted by all the fall-out.

Violence has always been part of history. I believe human beings are just violent by nature. Go to any playground and watch little preschoolers play and you will see just what I mean. They hit, kick, push and spit at each other. They must be taught to play nice. You could take every gun away from every person on the planet and destroy all guns, and people would find other weapons to use to kill each other. Guns are fairly recent in the history of man, but violent societies have existed from the beginning of time. The ancient cultures were extremely violent. The bible is probably the most violent book ever written. The medieval times were very violent times.

Whether or not we are more violent now, is debatable. If we are, it probably has something to do with the fact that we have more people on the planet than ever before. The population remained pretty steady through out history until last 200 years or so. Along with industrial age, the population exploded. And it is a fact, that the more densely populated place you have, the more violent it is. There is much more violence in large cities than tiny towns. Human beings really don't have any natural predictors at this point. We just have each other. I suppose eventually nature will eventually take care of our over population at some point. Nature likes order not chaos. Perhaps man will destroy it's self. If not depopulation will come from natural disasters or disease, but it will probably happen eventually. We just can't sustain the population we have on this planet for much longer.

Originally Posted by AnneZob

It doesn't matter whether Loughner was motivated by right wing politics, left wing politics or whether he was just plain crazy. The real issues are the competing narratives around the shooting (actual evidence does add credibility to the competing narratives though sometimes even that is not really necessary), which one wins and then what effect this has on events. Note that later on in history the "winning" narrative can easily change (multiple times), though that would be easier if Loughner had died at the scene or is later executed to leave people free to spin whatever story they like.

AZ, please don't take this personally, I'm only saying it because I think there's broader significance to your argument. It represents what is taught in universities today. (I do not remember anything about your age.) For at least 20 years now students learn that actual facts are irrelevant, only "narratives" do. This is, literally, one of the keys to the continuing collapse not only of academia but possibly of western civilization itself. It comes from Boomer narcissism--it doesn't matter what happened, only my feelings about it count. I will never give into it.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Violence has always been part of history. I believe human beings are just violent by nature. Go to any playground and watch little preschoolers play and you will see just what I mean. They hit, kick, push and spit at each other. They must be taught to play nice. You could take every gun away from every person on the planet and destroy all guns, and people would find other weapons to use to kill each other. Guns are fairly recent in the history of man, but violent societies have existed from the beginning of time. The ancient cultures were extremely violent. The bible is probably the most violent book ever written. The medieval times were very violent times.

Whether or not we are more violent now, is debatable. If we are, it probably has something to do with the fact that we have more people on the planet than ever before. The population remained pretty steady through out history until last 200 years or so. Along with industrial age, the population exploded. And it is a fact, that the more densely populated place you have, the more violent it is. There is much more violence in large cities than tiny towns. Human beings really don't have any natural predictors at this point. We just have each other. I suppose eventually nature will eventually take care of our over population at some point. Nature likes order not chaos. Perhaps man will destroy it's self. If not depopulation will come from natural disasters or disease, but it will probably happen eventually. We just can't sustain the population we have on this planet for much longer.

A very interesting post, with which I must also register some disagreement. The world is getting more violent, in my opinion, because of a general decline of authority and of state institutions, whose prestige seems to have peaked around the middle of the last century. Then people trusted the government, not their own Glocks, to keep order. And I do not agree that nature loves order. Nature seems to me by definition chaotic. It is man, through his imagination, who has dreamed of establishing order, and who has occasionally had some success--but that success has always been temporary, and it seems that will indeed be the case again this time.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

A very interesting post, with which I must also register some disagreement. The world is getting more violent, in my opinion, because of a general decline of authority and of state institutions, whose prestige seems to have peaked around the middle of the last century. Then people trusted the government, not their own Glocks, to keep order. And I do not agree that nature loves order. Nature seems to me by definition chaotic. It is man, through his imagination, who has dreamed of establishing order, and who has occasionally had some success--but that success has always been temporary, and it seems that will indeed be the case again this time.

Really? I always thought it was governments who committed and condoned a lot of the violence that went on in the ancient worlds. The high priests performed human sacrifices. The ancient Romans built colosseum so people could go watch the gladiators fight and threw people to lions while the crowds cheered. Medieval soldiers terrorized the villagers. The vikings sent ships to rape and pillage England. I think the rulers tried to keep order for themselves, but were pretty violent to everyone else around them.

And you are right that there is chaos in nature, but there is also order to it. The sun sets and rises, the seasons change, the laws of physics are all about order. Without order in nature, we wouldn't even be here.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Again, the United State's murder and gun death rates are comparable to other developed countries if one excludes blacks. We have problems with race, gangs, poverty and drugs. Our policy regarding gun control is not what divides us from other countries.

You are assuming cause and effect. You can also parse the data by noting that the death rate in the developed world is similar, except for the predominance of gun violence here. Adding all other methods together, the rates are relatively consistent.

Why is that not a reasonable sorting factor?

Because there are also countries with lots of guns that have a lot more or less violence.

Finland with 56 [guns per hundred citizens], Switzerland with 46, Iraq with 39 and Serbia with 38. France, Canada, Sweden, Austria and Germany were next, each with about 30 guns per 100 people

Obviously, Switzerland (or hell, Compton) is probably safer than Iraq right now. Then again, there are racially and economically segregated slums in France that are probably more dangerous than some yuppie American community full of middle-class gun owners.

But the main demographic statistics that correlate to violence are drastic income disparities and hot weather.

It really is only natural for the poor and oppressed to lash out.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

A very interesting post, with which I must also register some disagreement. The world is getting more violent, in my opinion, because of a general decline of authority and of state institutions, whose prestige seems to have peaked around the middle of the last century. Then people trusted the government, not their own Glocks, to keep order. And I do not agree that nature loves order. Nature seems to me by definition chaotic. It is man, through his imagination, who has dreamed of establishing order, and who has occasionally had some success--but that success has always been temporary, and it seems that will indeed be the case again this time.

I disagree with this statement, strongly. The government of the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s, etc... would have felt no pressure to represent the people had it not been for sometimes violent and always forceful demonstrations of nomad and civic labor.

What incentive is there to negotiate unless the factories have been occupied? If the people submit willingly to serfdom, no violence is needed but no good has been created either. Indeed, what leverage would Ghandi or MLK have had if there were not thousands of African-Americans & Indians who were willing to disobey bad laws or insist on disorder over an oppressive order? Same goes for John Hume & Gerry Adams.

Nature is chaotic, and this chaos is the kind of order behind evolution and progress. Stagnation and obedience is not order - it is decline and decay.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Nature is chaotic, and this chaos is the kind of order behind evolution and progress. Stagnation and obedience is not order - it is decline and decay.

What great insight! Thank you for that.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

But outside of this, does he have redeeming qualities?

Yes, indeed. He does for Weight Watchers what the ads of people with half their faces eaten away did for quitting smoking.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Really? I always thought it was governments who committed and condoned a lot of the violence that went on in the ancient worlds. The high priests performed human sacrifices. The ancient Romans built colosseum so people could go watch the gladiators fight and threw people to lions while the crowds cheered. Medieval soldiers terrorized the villagers. The vikings sent ships to rape and pillage England. I think the rulers tried to keep order for themselves, but were pretty violent to everyone else around them.

And you are right that there is chaos in nature, but there is also order to it. The sun sets and rises, the seasons change, the laws of physics are all about order. Without order in nature, we wouldn't even be here.

The Vikings were not sent by any governments. They were individual entrepreneurs.

Whether or not medieval soldiers terrorized the peasants was a function of a good many things, but I note the worst carnage I know of in period was, in England, during the Wars of Stephen and Maud ("The king was a good man and weak and did no justice..." ran a contemporary complaint) and on the Continent, somewhat post-Medieval, the devastating Thirty Years War.

The Hundred Years War, contrary to the numbers, wasn't as bad because it was an off-and-on thing for most of its lengths. A time or two when it exploded into real, serious, to-the-knife all-out war, see Henry V, Reign of, for details.

I am currently working on a major project to bring a recent best-seller novel to screen dealing with Zombies; it will be the biggest production for this genre ever. In my work, it has come to my attention how much this genre has been revived of late. I think the 'ether' is sensing where society's spiral of violence is heading.

Real-world 'zombies' will be those that have fallen out of the production side of the mass market economy - many by choice of retirement (e.g. Boomers), more by the loss of gainful employment.

As aggregate demand drops, businesses will seek to reduce input costs more to maintain market share that will not only create the positive feedback loop to further depress gainful employment, but further raise the perception of scare energy and natural resources as gaining more efficient access to them become the latest technique for production cost reductions. {If you find this confusing, thing about hyperinflation concerns in essentially a deflationary environment}

The combination will initially, and for some time to come, prove deadly for the 'Zombies' They will be viewed as insatiable devouring consumers but inanimate, i.e., dead, as producers, really not worthy of existence. Overt harmful attacks against them will increasingly occur on an individual basis (e.g. elder abuse,), but the real harm will be more from institutional behavioral change (e.g., cuts in employment insurance for the 'lazy' unemployed, demise of SS and Medicare because, hey, the Boomers caused all the zombification).

But eventually, Zombies 'win,' and in the usual way - accept for a few holdouts (e.g., Goldman Sachs elites holed up on some island), everyone eventually becomes a Zombie.

Problem with winning, however, is you're still a Zombie.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Thank you, Semo. You didn't type the link in for the New York Times story, so I couldn't read that--don't know I missed it in my own copy--but the Mother Jones piece was interesting. But it linked to something equally interesting. Tierney, Loughner's friend who was the source for Mother Jones, reported that Loughner's mother was Jewish. But this been well researched and she isn't--she came from a long line of Catholics. She might have had a Jewish grandfather, but that is speculative, based on his name, and his kids were raised Catholic.

The question I think we must face is whether the general, pervasive ideological climate of a particular time is in fact likely to turn a nutcase in particular direction. Loughner was already hostile to government, clearly, when he showed up at the first Gifford event. I am sure we are going to get more data about him--his friend said he kept a dream journal and I am sure investigators are pouring over his computer. Interestingly enough, Tierney also commented that he thought Loughner's motive was to create chaos and that he must be delighted by all the fall-out.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

I disagree with this statement, strongly. The government of the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s, etc... would have felt no pressure to represent the people had it not been for sometimes violent and always forceful demonstrations of nomad and civic labor.

What incentive is there to negotiate unless the factories have been occupied? If the people submit willingly to serfdom, no violence is needed but no good has been created either. Indeed, what leverage would Ghandi or MLK have had if there were not thousands of African-Americans & Indians who were willing to disobey bad laws or insist on disorder over an oppressive order? Same goes for John Hume & Gerry Adams.

Nature is chaotic, and this chaos is the kind of order behind evolution and progress. Stagnation and obedience is not order - it is decline and decay.

That is a total non sequitur. There's a big difference between a whole factory or industry or workers staging a strike, complete with picket lines, or even a sit-in strike, and a whole nation of citizens thinking it has to walk around armed 24/7. I really don't see what one has to do with the other.

There seems to be real lack of faith in democracy and law, even as ideals, among a good many posters on this forum. I find that sad.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

You didn't type the link in for the New York Times story, so I couldn't read that

Sorry about that. Here it is. (I'll update my earlier post too.)

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The question I think we must face is whether the general, pervasive ideological climate of a particular time is in fact likely to turn a nutcase in particular direction. Loughner was already hostile to government, clearly, when he showed up at the first Gifford event. I am sure we are going to get more data about him--his friend said he kept a dream journal and I am sure investigators are pouring over his computer. Interestingly enough, Tierney also commented that he thought Loughner's motive was to create chaos and that he must be delighted by all the fall-out.

I'm absolutely certain that he is delighted by the furor that his actions have created. Leon Czolgosz went to his death knowing that, for all of his failures and inadequacies, he had changed the course of history and would go down in the history books. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold consciously set out to create a hideous event that they knew would grip the nation (and they were not alone among school shooters in that respect). The same thirst for attention animates "mad bombers" like George Metesky and Ted Kaczynski, and terrorists like Timothy McVeigh.

For that reason, I disagree with Tierney. I don't think that people like Loughner want to see the world burn as much as they want the satisfaction of knowing that they can make the firefighters dance to their tune.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

AZ, please don't take this personally, I'm only saying it because I think there's broader significance to your argument. It represents what is taught in universities today. (I do not remember anything about your age.) For at least 20 years now students learn that actual facts are irrelevant, only "narratives" do. This is, literally, one of the keys to the continuing collapse not only of academia but possibly of western civilization itself. It comes from Boomer narcissism--it doesn't matter what happened, only my feelings about it count. I will never give into it.

Actually, what I just said does come from a dedication to truth - the truth of what really effects the course of history and hence how the shooting will effect this 4T.

If I was talking about what *really* happened I would take an entirely different approach of course.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Sorry about that. Here it is. (I'll update my earlier post too.)




I'm absolutely certain that he is delighted by the furor that his actions have created. Leon Czolgosz went to his death knowing that, for all of his failures and inadequacies, he had changed the course of history and would go down in the history books. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold consciously set out to create a hideous event that they knew would grip the nation (and they were not alone among school shooters in that respect). The same thirst for attention animates "mad bombers" like George Metesky and Ted Kaczynski, and terrorists like Timothy McVeigh.

For that reason, I disagree with Tierney. I don't think that people like Loughner want to see the world burn as much as they want the satisfaction of knowing that they can make the firefighters dance to their tune.

I agree. "How to Win Friends and Influence People" takes an entire book to say the same thing over and over again. That one of the most important human needs and one which is rarely statisfied is the need to feel important. There was a line, "If you tell me how you get your feeling of importance, I'll tell you what you are."

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

And I do not agree that nature loves order. Nature seems to me by definition chaotic.

This seems to be a fallacy most commonly found among the students of the 'humanities'.

"I don't understand xxx" is not the same as, nor does it necessarily imply "There is no sense to xxx". The fact that order exists at all -- to say nothing of how widespread it is -- indicates that order is an emergent property of reality. The reasonable default assumption (one constantly borne out by the continued success of the scientific method and other such epistemologically-similar tools) is that there is order to any particular occurrence, and that one simply is not able to perceive the large-enough or small-enough scale to see the order.

Originally Posted by AnneZob

I agree. "How to Win Friends and Influence People" takes an entire book to say the same thing over and over again. That one of the most important human needs and one which is rarely statisfied is the need to feel important. There was a line, "If you tell me how you get your feeling of importance, I'll tell you what you are."

I must sadly agree.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

There seems to be real lack of faith in democracy and law, even as ideals, among a good many posters on this forum. I find that sad.

I believe in democracy. I just don't feel that the average citizen is being represented in our country today. I also believe there needs to be laws. However, once again, it seems a lot of the laws that have been passed during the past several years (or even decades) also benefited corporations and stock traders more than they benefited the average citizen.

I wonder what the men who wrote the constitution would think if they came to Washington today? I'm thinking they probably wouldn't approve very much of the influence that lobbyist and corporations have over our government today. But then they were gentlemen too. So maybe they would be okay with it. I don't know. But I do think Thomas Jefferson even warned about corporate interests and their influence on government.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I believe in democracy. I just don't feel that the average citizen is being represented in our country today. I also believe there needs to be laws. However, once again, it seems a lot of the laws that have been passed during the past several years (or even decades) also benefited corporations and stock traders more than they benefited the average citizen.

I wonder what the men who wrote the constitution would think if they came to Washington today? I'm thinking they probably wouldn't approve very much of the influence that lobbyist and corporations have over our government today. But then they were gentlemen too. So maybe they would be okay with it. I don't know. But I do think Thomas Jefferson even warned about corporate interests and their influence on government.

Everything you say is true, but it's crucial not to give in to pessimism. I may have in the short run, but not in the long. Democracy does make change possible, when we have the will and the necessary leadership to make it happen. Meanwhile, law makes civilization possible.

I'm sure some of you have heard of Frances Piven, of the now-famous duo of "Cloward and Piven," who are right next to Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, if not Karl Marx, in the right-wing propaganda lexicon. They are supposed to have scripted America's fall in the 1960s but I, card-carrying leftist that I am, was apparently not well enough placed--I had never heard of either one of them until quite recently. Anyway, here's another story of interest for this thread.

Hey, Glenn Beck, Stop Inciting Death Threats Against Professor Piven
By Matthew Rothschild, January 20, 2011

Frances Fox Piven is a distinguished professor of political science and sociology at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York.

At 78, she has taught several generations of students about how and why poor people don’t get a fair shake in the United States and how to increase their organizational power and encourage voter registration.

Such scholarship, evidently, is too much for Glenn Beck, who several months ago started to wage a nasty campaign against her.

He’s falsely accused her of being “an enemy of the Constitution” and an advocate of “violent revolution” and has listed her as one of the nine most dangerous people in the world.

Since he started to air these attacks, Piven has begun receiving death threats.

“I got e-mails that said, ‘Die You Cunt,’ and ‘May cancer find you soon,’ ” she tells The Progressive. “And people are posting my address on the Internet with their messages that are really crude and ugly and violent.”

According to the Center for Constitutional Rights, several death threats against her have been posted on Beck’s website.

Here are a few:

“Be very careful what you ask for honey…A few well placed marksmen with high powered rifles…”

“Maybe they should burst through the front door of the arrogant elitist and slit the cow’s throat.”

“Somebody tell Frances I have 5,000 rounds ready.”

“We should blow up Piven’s office and home.”

“Let’s go string her up.”

“Snap her little chicken neck. This pinko filth needs a long dirt nap.”

The Center for Constitutional Rights just sent a letter to Roger Ailes, president of Fox News, urging him “to intervene and bring a stop to …the reckless endangering of the safety of Professor Piven.”

The letter, signed by executive director Vincent Warren and legal director William Quigley, concludes: “Professor Piven’s life could be at stake.”

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Again, the United State's murder and gun death rates are comparable to other developed countries if one excludes blacks. We have problems with race, gangs, poverty and drugs. Our policy regarding gun control is not what divides us from other countries.

Well, except that they have it, we don't, and we have higher murder and gun death rates.

Race and poverty are important factors. But most countries have worse problems with poverty than we have. Even our poor are better off than most people in most countries. People here use guns because they can.

It is true that many countries with worse poverty than the US also have higher murder rates.

Of course, "gun deaths" in the table I posted before also includes the other dangerous results from guns such as accidents, etc.

If our murder rates are due to gangs and drugs and poverty, why are the rates of gun deaths so much lower in states with gun control like New York and Massachussetts, where there are lots of gangs and drugs and poverty, than in states without gun control like Louisiana, Mississippi, Arizona, Montana and Alaska?

If you compare our country with developed countries with tougher gun laws, The USA has two to five times higher murder rates.

Some web sites offering further study:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics

http://www.infoplease.com/us/statist...ate-state.html

wikipedia says:

"Overall the total crime rate of the United States is similar to that of other highly developed countries. Some types of reported property crime in the U.S. survey as lower than in Germany or Canada, yet the homicide rate in the United States is substantially higher.
[edit]Homicide
The US homicide rate, which has declined substantially since 1991, is still among the highest in the industrialized world. There were 17,034 murders in the United States in 2006[30] (666,160 murders from 1960 to 1996).[31] In 2004, there were 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 persons, roughly three times as high as Canada (1.9) and six times as high as Germany (0.9)."

So why is crime about the same in the USA and other countries, but murder is much higher in the USA than in other countries?

Maybe because guns kill people. That's what they are made to do.